At the risk of arousing my natural bias toward the truth, I have of late taken to reading Sky News. I have done so during the events surrounding Labor’s decision to change the settings for the stage three tax changes.
In doing so, I found a collection of half-truths, lies by omission and misrepresentation. I had to ask myself if we have reached the point in politics where truth is something that politicians have persuaded us to believe, “like alternative facts” rather than truth based on factual evidence, argument, and assertions.
I am convinced Peter Dutton and others of his ilk, including his supporters in the media, believe that the effect of lying diminishes over time, and they forget that they leave behind a residue of broken trust.
Take this piece by Caroline Di Russo, Sky News, 3 February 2024. At the foot of her piece, she runs out of words to condemn Labor for breaking a promise. She concludes:
“… Labor has opted for its tried and tested “class warfare” approach to politics.
The only change is a studious avoidance of the phrase “big end of town”, presumably because that didn’t work out so well for them during the 2019 campaign.
The politics of envy is the same though; it’s just a quieter version.
And I doubt we have seen the last of it.
During the Prime Minister’s National Press Club speech last week he refused to rule out changes to negative gearing.
Either it’s already on the cards, or the Prime Minister knew no one would believe him if he denied it so he just didn’t bother. Meanwhile, Treasurer Chalmers has since tried to reject such changes are on the cards.
Labor need to find more avenues to tax because they refuse to cut government spending – the true source of our domestic inflation.
Despite promising to go through the budget “line by line” to reduce government spending, Labor’s last budget included $185 billion in new spending commitments.
So instead of cutting spending to curb inflation, Labor will redistribute from the “top end of town” to pretend it is providing relief for lower- and middle-income earners.
The issue for voters is this: it’s not what Labor is giving with one hand today, it’s what they will take with the other tomorrow.”
Every time Labor tries to bring some counterbalance of fairness over Australian economics, the conservative response is always to shout at the top of their lungs, “class warfare”. When it is so evident that the wealthy and privileged enjoy wealth concessions way over that of the average citizen, why on earth do the conservatives not just admit it?
The country would be better off if politicians did change their minds when categorically demanded for the common good.
Why not just admit that the revised tax cuts are popular with up to 66% of the population and back them?
In my piece Money Money Money. It’s a Rich Man World I quoted research by the Australian Institute that is but one truth of how well the rich are looked after.
Last year, before legislation to fix the problem, their research showed that:
“… the cost to the federal budget of generous superannuation tax concessions was on par with the cost of the entire aged pension and more significant than the total cost of the NDIS as a whole in 2022-2023.”
My piece goes on to explain in detail just how advantaged the wealthy and privileged really are, so it’s a bit rich for Caroline Di Russo to cry “class warfare” every time Labor tries to make society a little fairer. But then it was that British lady with lousy hair who said, “There is no such thing as society, only individuals making their way.”
“Class warfare” is a terrible and disgusting term, and if anyone is carrying it out, it is the conservatives. They are doing all the complaining.
Labor need to find more avenues to tax because they refuse to cut government spending – the true source of our domestic inflation.
This statement by Caroline Di Russo is either an outright lie or a misrepresentation of the facts. One only has to do a search asking if Labor has made an effort to wind back Government spending, and you will find ample evidence that they have.
Shane Wright in the Sydney Morning Herald also noted:
“Almost $10 billion in federal spending will be either cut or pumped into other priorities in this week’s budget update as all levels of government come under pressure to reduce expenditure and ease inflation.”
And in another article for the same paper acknowledged that:
“In the space of 18 months, Treasurer Jim Chalmers has found the best part of $100 billion down the back of the budget lounge.”
Even way back in October 2022 it looked as though some in the Murdoch media were enthusiastic about Labor’s budget:
“Labor to slash $21 billion of government spending after audit of departments.”
And Ellen Ransey reported in the Great Southern Herald that Jim Chalmers and Katy Gallaher were to reveal $17.8 in savings in the 2023 budget.
There are other examples, but these make my point.
Returning to Caroline Di Russo’s article, her assertion that there were increases in spending is correct, but they were investments designed to start productivity and drive growth. Therefore, there is a return on investment. There are deficits, but they are designed to decline in dollar terms as a percentage of the economy yearly.
To assert as she has done that cutting government spending is the cause of high inflation is absurd. It is a far more significant problem and more complex than her analysis.
[textblock style=”4″]
My thought for the day
When drafting a budget for the common good what should your priorities be?
[/textblock]
[textblock style=”7″]
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
[/textblock]
